It’s great that we finally have a Multiband compressor with an external side-chain input. Ditto the Expander.
But I was sorry to see that this isn’t a universal thing… the Multiband EnvelopeShaper doesn’t have this. VST Dynamics doesn’t. The Maximizer doesn’t. The Limiter doesn’t. The Brickwall Limiter doesn’t…
It would be nice when things like this are implemented if they were done so at a universal level…
instead, i’d suggest making any vst parameter automatable using an envelope extracted from any audio signal, like FL studio allows for example (so you can get really creative… eg. take the snare envelope and link it, using an inverse exponential curve, to a reverb ‘wet’ parameter… pure sidechain is getting a little obsolete.)
That is fancy! I guess that’s along the line with the previous request (audio to midi CC)
A cool idea, but I have to side with the simpler idea of sidechains. Just the way my brain kinda works, I suppose.
This device can accept an external control signal.
vs
We are tracking the audio waveform to convert into a continuous signal that you may use anywhere…
hmmm… heck, I’ll take either option 
+1
I’d rather have simple side-chains. Too many options getting in the way when mixing otherwise — Reaper’s a complete ‘fustercluck’ because of that. But then you add a plug-in for Audio>CC, with options to manipulate the result (inverse, restrict range etc), with the output selectable from anywhere, just like a side chain… best of both worlds.
+1
we are in the digital world. i wish foe more stuff like that and less anachronism. i use cubase as a creative tool not only a mixer
^ that
+1 for all these suggestions. I would love better sidechaining all round. Also, a great feature to drive automation from another audio signal, that would be very very useful.
Mike.
+1
This isn’t about the FR, but just personally, on second thought, I would probably not want to open Pandora’s box of data tracking every signal to modulate something else.
I think it gets too far away from me doing what I love, making creative decisions manually and making and allowing mistakes and imperfections, not being able to just automatically have everything contour everything else into a neat little puzzle… It just goes a little too far for me and my purposes.
It’s like at my job, people want all these upgrades for automating tasks in our software, people want all of the manual work streamlined. I’m like “if the software does all that, they will not need you anymore”
I understand the philosophy of the argument, but it’s still just an option one does not need to use. You could argue that seeing a waveform in the arrange distracts from musicality and Cubase should be a MIDI-only platform, etc.
From a technical standpoint, the DAW is aware of the each channel’s peak signal values all the time, there is no risk of bottlenecking. Also most popular DAWs these day do have a similar feature.
+1
I think this ought to be thought of in general terms of a DAW in 2015 (nearly there, and a Happy New Year in advance to everyone).
I mean, any parameter that is already computed or otherwise “touched” by the system should be available for routing to available destinations, much like a matrix in a synthesizer. This not only makes sense from a logical point of view, e.g. consider how many of these parameters have “feel” in them which would be suitable for musical (as opposed to mathematical curves) manipulation of plugins and audio.
Probably the reason why this is not so, is because they people making the DAWs think traditionally of what they are creating. Hopefully this can change in the (near) future.
yeah i hope so, too. unless this is a deliberate demarcation to be staying within cubase’s own linear ‘tape machine’ realm and not even attempt to do what daws like ableton do. modularity (the lack of) is the least developed aspect of the program compared to the competition at the moment, imho.
I agree whole-heartedly with you, Lucas (of Brooklyn, presumably? 
).